My friend plays an AWESOME Mayael deck that's pretty much just all the Naya beasties and some amazing dragons and angels. It's probably the most consistently competative deck at our table, but still a lot of fun to play against.
Maybe this is a weird question, but why are the options "My friends and I?"
For example, I am different than most of my friends. I would fall into the "exclusively gamer, with little or no emphasis on tv/movie" but 90% of my friends fall into "exclusively tv/movie fans, with little or no emphasis on gaming." They rent, buy, and go to the theater. I do none of those, own very few movies, and would rather spend my money on a multi-hour interactive game, than $10 to eat popcorn at the movies for 2 hours.
So, why no split options?
I have a few gamer friends... one small group that'll Magic and board game with me, and a couple of friends that'll video game with me. (However, I can often get anyone to play Guitar Hero!)
Also as a side note, since you were talking about cult movie fans, you must be familiar with The Big Lebowski! My friends and I have gone twice to the LebowskiFest in Kentucky, so we know a little about being cult movie fans.
Go watch Trekkies too. That's a good one.
I forgot about Trekkies, thanks for the idea! That'll help a lot.
The reason for the akwardness of the questions are twofold. First, I'm trying to get answers to a pretty complicated topic with a single question, instead of an entire survey; if I was going to research this topic seriously, I would probably have a thirty-question survey to get the answers I'm trying to get from a single question. Secondly, the questions are focused on your friends because that's what I'm studying- the interaction of gaming subculture. While it's undeniable that social interaction in sub-cultures can occur without being face to face, or even with people you've never met (this website is a great example), it's the human interaction that I'm looking at first and foremost.
I disagree. You're pretty much ignoring the idea of single-player games.
Yes I am, because I don't care about single player games. They're fun, but the fact that they are "single-player games" means they aren't really interesting to me as a sociologist. I'm looking at games that, simply by existing, not only create group interaction but also create a subculture. And while it could be argued that single player games can have a fan following, it's really much different than what I'm studying. Also, video games are out- only tabletop games that involve group interaction.
In my thesis prospectus I give a pretty detailed description of what I consider, for the purposes of the study, "tabletop games". I lump them into three rough categories- roleplaying games (Dungeons and Dragons, Vampire), miniatures games (Warhammer, Axis and Allies) and collectables games (Magic, Heroclix). These definitions are pretty rough, but part of academic study is making necessary generalizations, especially in sociology. If I took the time to detail every single difference in every single game and create seperate sub-categories for all of them, I wouldn't be able to get anything done, and each individual sub-group would be so small I wouldn't be able to do any significant research with them.
See, the difference between sociologists and "real" scientists is that we admit that research is vauge, generalized, and falliable, but that doesn't mean it's worthless, and it doesn't mean you can't learn anything from it.
Thanks to everyone for your responses. Feel free to keep 'em coming!
Would be nice to try to make a good rareless deck. Skullclamp seems like a nice replacement for the lack of rares.:laugh:
That defeats the purpose, and you know it!! ; )
Seriously, I think that 75% of Mirrodin block should be permanently banned from casual play.
Okay, just affinity. Do you know what it's like to be playing a casual game, and walk right into an affinity deck? That happened to me last week; I'm all like, "hey guy I don't know, I'll test my new, clunky Sek'Kuar, Deathkeeper/Lyzolda, the Blood Witch multiplayer deck in a fun, casual one-on-one game!"
Then he dropped six cards from his hand on turn one, and the other two on turn two. How is that fun for anyone? If that kid was my only child I'd have disowned him.
I think the Scryb Ranger is probably the better sideboard card (blocks Brine Elemental all day long). If you had a way to make sure that you could get the Muse in unmolested, then it would be superior...I just don't see that happening.
Unless I was running U/G with Tefari . . . hmmm.
what's the status on U/G these days, anyways (with the exception of faeries)?
seriously, he probably just left 10 open spaces for the "cards he is considering" so no cuts have to be made when he adds them.
And I agree this deck needs more lands.
Well, then I guess I didn't read the post properly, did I?
I always die a little inside when I do something that I constantly berate others for.
Jesus god in heaven: I just realized that the deck actually has 60 cards, and I can't count. Well, then: I would definetly consider jumping up to 24 lands with 4 signets, because with 14 lands you will never, ever draw enough mana, ever.
Also: you don't have very many discard outlets; I'd use ones that also disrupt the opponent, like Smallpox and Delerium Skeins. Smallpox, obviously, is great if you have any copies of Flagstones of Trokiar lying around, and really helps take care of early creatures. I still can't believe how good that card is.
I think the deck is on the right track, but you really need to decide what it's going to do. Do you want to reanimate huge dudes, or do a bunch of card disruption/discard? You can do both, I just think there should be an emphasis on one or the other, otherwise neither works out really well. If you do plan on going with more dedicated discard, you might consider either The Rack or Jotun Grunt.
I probably should have titled it "sideboard option", since I'm really only discussing one card.
Anyways: do you think that pickles is going to be important enough in the new standard to warrant Seedborn Muse as a sideboard card? The Muse is actually my favorite card of all time, so I'm not really objective when it comes to this sort of thing. I'm just curious if anyone else thinks it's a good idea.
Hey happybounce!
how is the mine working for you im liking rites myself
I haven't had a chance to build or test it yet, grad school is spanking me pretty hard right now : (
However, my buddy Ray-Ray knows I'm short on time and wanted some decklists to put together and test, and this is one of the ones I'm going to send him. I'll let you know what happens.
Whoah! I just noticed you only have 50 cards in the deck you listed. Is that on purpose?
Anyways, with a deck that has as many high casting costs as this one, I'd easily go with 24 lands and four signets. You really want to be hitting those early land drops. You could also use some lands that help protect against early rushes like Desert or Quicksand, or even Mouth of Ronom for some late game removal.
How serious are you about the control aspect of the deck? And is it for multiplayer, single casual play or both? There are some pretty effective lockdown strategies for green, but they aren't a whole lot of fun for other players.
I've actually come to the point i hoped never would come, i'm a multiplayer Spike amking decks that make the more Timmy players groan.
I have difficulties making decks that are not too powerful, because i already make too powerful decks, they expect that and build decks to counter mine and i just keep refining mine to counter theirs.
And in the event i do make a less powerful deck, they still assume it's really powerful and try to kill me first.
But as a Spike i just want to do my best to win, even in making decks.
I just have difficulties not putting in mass-removal, efficient creatures, recursion and everything else that makes my decks tick.
But it also makes my fellow magic players want to play less magic.
Please help my inner Timmy and my inner Johnny balance out things.
No problem. You can do a number of things, but the easiest one that I've found is to limit yourself in some way during the deck creation process, like I did with my 8 rare green deck.
Limiting the number of rares you have in a deck is really my favorite way to do it; I think eight rares is a good number, but I chose only mediocre rares. If you are a spike and you love the big stuff, you might want to try four or six really good rares, then build the rest of the deck using only commons and uncommons. Trust me when I say that if you do this, you don't want to go more than eight rares (it's a magic number when saying "I only have x number of rares!") and you probably don't want to spend any rare slots on dual lands.
I recommend it to any dedicated deck builder; it's a great challenege, and it really puts the fun back in deckbuilding because it forces you to do something different. And you can still have efficient creatures, mass removal, and good kill spells- you just have to explore a little bit.
Limiting the number of rares is probably the easiest way to force yourself to deckbuild creativley, but there are other ways; you could make a multiplayer deck that uses an alternate kill mechanism that doesn't work very well in multiplayer, like poison or decking (DON'T go with something like Test of Endurance or Epic Struggle, although The Cheese Stands Alone is perfectly acceptable).
You could try and make a deck using nothing but one single expansion (and if you really want to challenge yourself, make it a small expansion that isn't Guildpact or Dissension), or you could make a deck where all non-land cards are creatures, or artifacts (I don't recommend Affinity ever), or even enchantments- hell, if you've got the cards you could make a deck where all non-land cards are Planeswalkers. You could even make a 60-card land deck- I've seen it done before, and while it isn't always pretty, it sure as hell is fun to watch.
A good way to stop your buddies from ganging up is to make a deck that'll make 'em laugh, like an all-squirrel or rodent deck, or a deck where every character in the card art is wearing a different hat or doesn't have pants (and see if they can figure out the connection). The problem, however, is that you are now an established threat, and your buddies will keep taking you out fast and early until you change that assumption. What you're gonna have to do for a while is not only limit your deckbuilding choices (like with eight rares, or whatever) but also take your lumps. For a few games- maybe even a whole night- your buddies are going to team up on you and probably even brag about it. Take it on the chin. Take it like a man. Bring a book so you have something to do when you go out first every time. Then, when they realize you don't have some crazy powerful Wrath of God/Living Deathdeck, you'll actually be able to play fun games of multiplayer where everyone is on more or less even footing.
And then, when they least expect it and you've taken your lumps like a champ, you can bust out your super bad-ass deck and stomp everyone.
Briefly, it feels to me like it just boils down to this: the more [specific] elements you share with somebody else, the closer you will feel to them. This is hardly gaming specific, or counterintuitive, for that matter. Care to disclose your thesis, or at least one argument dealing with it?
Hope I'm not being annoying here.
Not at all!
One of the big arguments is that gamers make friends with each other for a very simple reason: we have something to do together. Think about it- you can talk with someone about religion all day long, but gamers not only have something to talk about, we have something to do together immediatley. We're instantly involved not only in coversation but in a socially important ritual that we both enjoy, thereby increasing solidarity. I have no doubt that if gamers only talked to other gamers they didn't know about the games we play, we probably wouldn't have the increased level of interconnectivity; however, the moment I sit down with a dude and sling the cardboard we become fast friends (unless he plays blue). Furthermore, playing games that are inherently competitive in a friendly, open environment takes some of the sting out of potential disagreemens- always an awkward stage when first meeting someone.
Yes, it's simple, but I think it makes sense. We make friends with other magic players very quickly because we don't just have something to talk about, we have something to do together.
I agree fullheartedly. There's a marked difference between the gaming hobbyist and the cult fan. I could see the case for the former being a subset of the latter, but yes. I also note that the social interaction between gamers and cult-movie-fans is hugely different. The former is usually friendly, and the latter is often more competitive, argumentative.
Interesting stuff.
I'm not seeing a poll, though.
Done! I didn't realize the thread would go up before the poll- I wanted to get the questions just right, without any emphasis one way or the other.
What I find interesting is that there really isn't a category for "cult gamers", because a lot of what makes a "cult fan" different from more casual fans are totally necessary to being a gamer. The prime example is interaction; a cult movie fan is considered "different" because they identify so much with the text that they feel a need to interact with it on a personal and social level. There is no such distinciton for gamers, because that act of immersion and interactivity more or less defines gaming!
I think that if there were more good Star Trek games, people wouldn't feel the need to go running around dressed as Borg quite so often.
Gamers are classified under the "cult movie fan" subculture in academia? Although I'm not familiar with the literature, that strikes me as being odd, since gaming has been pretty pervasive for some time.
When I read this, my first thought was, "isn't this true for any other type of community?" naturally leading to the question, "what makes the gamer subculture significantly different from any other community?" I could probably walk into, say, an atheist convention and "instantly have a dozen friends", because of whatever shared elements we have as a result (and shared elements are, of course, the basis of community). Maybe I will have some conflicts with people. But is that any different than having a conflict with the jerk of a tournament player at the card shop?
Gamers aren't classified as cult movie fans, but there is almost no relevant literature on gaming- and what literature does exist tends to either focus on it's (supposedly) negative aspects, or emphasis "escapism", particularly with regards to Dungeons and Dragons. I needed a class badly so my loans wouldn't default, and I didn't have time to drag up a huge lit review about gaming, so for this class I'm writing about cult movie fans (lots of research on that topic) and then relating it to gamer culture later.
As for the interaction- yes, anyone with any real intrest can go and have a discussion with other people about that similar interest. But haven't you ever noticed how with gamers, it's different? Haven't you ever met a fellow green player that hated blue decks and instantly become friends? This is something that I've experienced and a number of other friends have experienced- my best friend went to GenCon, and just met person after person who he connected with in a very real, very personal sense, and it was all because of gaming. My reasons for why this happens are many, and I'm going to use my thesis to explore this.
I'm a Sociology grad student at Central Michigan University, and I'm enrolled in an indepednant reading class titled "The Sociology of Fandom and it's Relevance to Gaming Subculture". This class is a precursor to my thesis topic, which will be on the interconnectivity between gamers and how our hobbies allow us to walk into any hobby store in the world and instantly have a dozen friends.
Anyways, I'm writing my paper, and I am making an argument that while gamers often share many traits with "cult" movie fans- such as interacting with the text (sitting with your buddies and yelling at Luke for being a pansy), taking on the role of "the other" (I'm talking to all you kids who ever played an RPG or CCG related to movies or TV), or playful competition or textual arguments (Han shot first, and I'll beat anyone at Star Wars Trivial pursuit)- we don't identify ourselves as cult movie fans. I think it's because gaming is, by it's nature, more interactive than almost all movie fan activities, and a lot of the most interactive activities that movie fans pursue ARE gaming. Furthermore, it's easier to be a gamer in the social sense because you HAVE to interact with other people at some point, whereas the most diehard star trek fan really never has to leave his mom's basement.
This is what I think, and most of my friends agree- that while we are, under the academic definition, "cult movie fans", we don't define ourselves as that in the social sense, and it's because we're really gamers before we are anything else. However, I really want to know what other people think, or if I'm just totally full of it. Answering the poll question would help me a lot, and if anyone wants to elaborate on their experiences it would also be helpful. Oh, and please don't answer the poll more than once- while I doubt this will "officially" be in my paper (I certianly didn't get permission from the IRB), I'm still trying to maintain some semblance of factuality.
My friend plays an AWESOME Mayael deck that's pretty much just all the Naya beasties and some amazing dragons and angels. It's probably the most consistently competative deck at our table, but still a lot of fun to play against.
I run a Sharuum the Hegemon deck that is terrifying to behold . . . AND I run cards like Crown of the Ages, Mizzium Transreliquat and Phyrexian Splicer. People laugh, until I steal their Shielding Plax and their general gets blown up!
BEST MAGIC PLAY EVER: I stole and used a friends Ancestral Recall using a Grinning Totem, and I'm not kidding even a little bit. It was amazing.
I forgot about Trekkies, thanks for the idea! That'll help a lot.
The reason for the akwardness of the questions are twofold. First, I'm trying to get answers to a pretty complicated topic with a single question, instead of an entire survey; if I was going to research this topic seriously, I would probably have a thirty-question survey to get the answers I'm trying to get from a single question. Secondly, the questions are focused on your friends because that's what I'm studying- the interaction of gaming subculture. While it's undeniable that social interaction in sub-cultures can occur without being face to face, or even with people you've never met (this website is a great example), it's the human interaction that I'm looking at first and foremost.
Yes I am, because I don't care about single player games. They're fun, but the fact that they are "single-player games" means they aren't really interesting to me as a sociologist. I'm looking at games that, simply by existing, not only create group interaction but also create a subculture. And while it could be argued that single player games can have a fan following, it's really much different than what I'm studying. Also, video games are out- only tabletop games that involve group interaction.
In my thesis prospectus I give a pretty detailed description of what I consider, for the purposes of the study, "tabletop games". I lump them into three rough categories- roleplaying games (Dungeons and Dragons, Vampire), miniatures games (Warhammer, Axis and Allies) and collectables games (Magic, Heroclix). These definitions are pretty rough, but part of academic study is making necessary generalizations, especially in sociology. If I took the time to detail every single difference in every single game and create seperate sub-categories for all of them, I wouldn't be able to get anything done, and each individual sub-group would be so small I wouldn't be able to do any significant research with them.
See, the difference between sociologists and "real" scientists is that we admit that research is vauge, generalized, and falliable, but that doesn't mean it's worthless, and it doesn't mean you can't learn anything from it.
Thanks to everyone for your responses. Feel free to keep 'em coming!
That defeats the purpose, and you know it!! ; )
Seriously, I think that 75% of Mirrodin block should be permanently banned from casual play.
Okay, just affinity. Do you know what it's like to be playing a casual game, and walk right into an affinity deck? That happened to me last week; I'm all like, "hey guy I don't know, I'll test my new, clunky Sek'Kuar, Deathkeeper/Lyzolda, the Blood Witch multiplayer deck in a fun, casual one-on-one game!"
Then he dropped six cards from his hand on turn one, and the other two on turn two. How is that fun for anyone? If that kid was my only child I'd have disowned him.
Dude, Number Crunch is the reason no one wants to tell me what time it is whenever I play blue.
Yelling, "GOTCHA, *****!" Doesn't really help either.
So, am I still in? Do I have to re-post a deck list? Can I still hang out in the treehouse? Does anyone care? Am I all alone?
I'm probably going to post a decklist here anyways, sooner or later.
Unless I was running U/G with Tefari . . . hmmm.
what's the status on U/G these days, anyways (with the exception of faeries)?
Well, then I guess I didn't read the post properly, did I?
I always die a little inside when I do something that I constantly berate others for.
Jesus god in heaven: I just realized that the deck actually has 60 cards, and I can't count. Well, then: I would definetly consider jumping up to 24 lands with 4 signets, because with 14 lands you will never, ever draw enough mana, ever.
Also: you don't have very many discard outlets; I'd use ones that also disrupt the opponent, like Smallpox and Delerium Skeins. Smallpox, obviously, is great if you have any copies of Flagstones of Trokiar lying around, and really helps take care of early creatures. I still can't believe how good that card is.
I think the deck is on the right track, but you really need to decide what it's going to do. Do you want to reanimate huge dudes, or do a bunch of card disruption/discard? You can do both, I just think there should be an emphasis on one or the other, otherwise neither works out really well. If you do plan on going with more dedicated discard, you might consider either The Rack or Jotun Grunt.
Anyways: do you think that pickles is going to be important enough in the new standard to warrant Seedborn Muse as a sideboard card? The Muse is actually my favorite card of all time, so I'm not really objective when it comes to this sort of thing. I'm just curious if anyone else thinks it's a good idea.
I haven't had a chance to build or test it yet, grad school is spanking me pretty hard right now : (
However, my buddy Ray-Ray knows I'm short on time and wanted some decklists to put together and test, and this is one of the ones I'm going to send him. I'll let you know what happens.
Anyways, with a deck that has as many high casting costs as this one, I'd easily go with 24 lands and four signets. You really want to be hitting those early land drops. You could also use some lands that help protect against early rushes like Desert or Quicksand, or even Mouth of Ronom for some late game removal.
No problem. You can do a number of things, but the easiest one that I've found is to limit yourself in some way during the deck creation process, like I did with my 8 rare green deck.
Limiting the number of rares you have in a deck is really my favorite way to do it; I think eight rares is a good number, but I chose only mediocre rares. If you are a spike and you love the big stuff, you might want to try four or six really good rares, then build the rest of the deck using only commons and uncommons. Trust me when I say that if you do this, you don't want to go more than eight rares (it's a magic number when saying "I only have x number of rares!") and you probably don't want to spend any rare slots on dual lands.
I recommend it to any dedicated deck builder; it's a great challenege, and it really puts the fun back in deckbuilding because it forces you to do something different. And you can still have efficient creatures, mass removal, and good kill spells- you just have to explore a little bit.
Limiting the number of rares is probably the easiest way to force yourself to deckbuild creativley, but there are other ways; you could make a multiplayer deck that uses an alternate kill mechanism that doesn't work very well in multiplayer, like poison or decking (DON'T go with something like Test of Endurance or Epic Struggle, although The Cheese Stands Alone is perfectly acceptable).
You could try and make a deck using nothing but one single expansion (and if you really want to challenge yourself, make it a small expansion that isn't Guildpact or Dissension), or you could make a deck where all non-land cards are creatures, or artifacts (I don't recommend Affinity ever), or even enchantments- hell, if you've got the cards you could make a deck where all non-land cards are Planeswalkers. You could even make a 60-card land deck- I've seen it done before, and while it isn't always pretty, it sure as hell is fun to watch.
A good way to stop your buddies from ganging up is to make a deck that'll make 'em laugh, like an all-squirrel or rodent deck, or a deck where every character in the card art is wearing a different hat or doesn't have pants (and see if they can figure out the connection). The problem, however, is that you are now an established threat, and your buddies will keep taking you out fast and early until you change that assumption. What you're gonna have to do for a while is not only limit your deckbuilding choices (like with eight rares, or whatever) but also take your lumps. For a few games- maybe even a whole night- your buddies are going to team up on you and probably even brag about it. Take it on the chin. Take it like a man. Bring a book so you have something to do when you go out first every time. Then, when they realize you don't have some crazy powerful Wrath of God/Living Deathdeck, you'll actually be able to play fun games of multiplayer where everyone is on more or less even footing.
And then, when they least expect it and you've taken your lumps like a champ, you can bust out your super bad-ass deck and stomp everyone.
And hey, thanks for reading!
Not at all!
One of the big arguments is that gamers make friends with each other for a very simple reason: we have something to do together. Think about it- you can talk with someone about religion all day long, but gamers not only have something to talk about, we have something to do together immediatley. We're instantly involved not only in coversation but in a socially important ritual that we both enjoy, thereby increasing solidarity. I have no doubt that if gamers only talked to other gamers they didn't know about the games we play, we probably wouldn't have the increased level of interconnectivity; however, the moment I sit down with a dude and sling the cardboard we become fast friends (unless he plays blue). Furthermore, playing games that are inherently competitive in a friendly, open environment takes some of the sting out of potential disagreemens- always an awkward stage when first meeting someone.
Yes, it's simple, but I think it makes sense. We make friends with other magic players very quickly because we don't just have something to talk about, we have something to do together.
Done! I didn't realize the thread would go up before the poll- I wanted to get the questions just right, without any emphasis one way or the other.
What I find interesting is that there really isn't a category for "cult gamers", because a lot of what makes a "cult fan" different from more casual fans are totally necessary to being a gamer. The prime example is interaction; a cult movie fan is considered "different" because they identify so much with the text that they feel a need to interact with it on a personal and social level. There is no such distinciton for gamers, because that act of immersion and interactivity more or less defines gaming!
I think that if there were more good Star Trek games, people wouldn't feel the need to go running around dressed as Borg quite so often.
Gamers aren't classified as cult movie fans, but there is almost no relevant literature on gaming- and what literature does exist tends to either focus on it's (supposedly) negative aspects, or emphasis "escapism", particularly with regards to Dungeons and Dragons. I needed a class badly so my loans wouldn't default, and I didn't have time to drag up a huge lit review about gaming, so for this class I'm writing about cult movie fans (lots of research on that topic) and then relating it to gamer culture later.
As for the interaction- yes, anyone with any real intrest can go and have a discussion with other people about that similar interest. But haven't you ever noticed how with gamers, it's different? Haven't you ever met a fellow green player that hated blue decks and instantly become friends? This is something that I've experienced and a number of other friends have experienced- my best friend went to GenCon, and just met person after person who he connected with in a very real, very personal sense, and it was all because of gaming. My reasons for why this happens are many, and I'm going to use my thesis to explore this.
Anyways, I'm writing my paper, and I am making an argument that while gamers often share many traits with "cult" movie fans- such as interacting with the text (sitting with your buddies and yelling at Luke for being a pansy), taking on the role of "the other" (I'm talking to all you kids who ever played an RPG or CCG related to movies or TV), or playful competition or textual arguments (Han shot first, and I'll beat anyone at Star Wars Trivial pursuit)- we don't identify ourselves as cult movie fans. I think it's because gaming is, by it's nature, more interactive than almost all movie fan activities, and a lot of the most interactive activities that movie fans pursue ARE gaming. Furthermore, it's easier to be a gamer in the social sense because you HAVE to interact with other people at some point, whereas the most diehard star trek fan really never has to leave his mom's basement.
This is what I think, and most of my friends agree- that while we are, under the academic definition, "cult movie fans", we don't define ourselves as that in the social sense, and it's because we're really gamers before we are anything else. However, I really want to know what other people think, or if I'm just totally full of it. Answering the poll question would help me a lot, and if anyone wants to elaborate on their experiences it would also be helpful. Oh, and please don't answer the poll more than once- while I doubt this will "officially" be in my paper (I certianly didn't get permission from the IRB), I'm still trying to maintain some semblance of factuality.
Thanks a lot for helping!